Michael Burt
speaker
25 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jul 2026
last heard 7 Jul
Michael Burt’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.
Appearances
Bannon`s War Room · Episode 5498: Day 2 Of The Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial · 7 Jul 2026
podcast
Good morning, Your Honor.
Michael Burt for Mr. Robinson.
We have no objection to that procedure.
As long as the court makes a ruling that the objections are preserved, we do think it would expedite matters if we didn't have to repeat the standing objection.
There may be particular objections that are not covered by the standing objection we've made, and so we ask permission to be allowed to make those objections as needed.
Judge, I wanted to clarify one argument that was made by counsel for the media yesterday, and that was the rules, the rule 4-202.02 does not apply to the situation we're in right now, and that is wrong.
The rule says that this rule applies to the judicial branch, and 4-202.02J says the judge...
may regulate or deny access to exhibits to ensure a fair trial.
So I think that rule does apply to our situation, and the Supreme Court in the Algier, A-L-L-G-I-E-R case, 258, Pacific Third, 589, applied the rule in the context of an evidentiary exhibit.
And I know the court has not mentioned since counsel made that argument this particular rule, but I think it does apply here.
And also applicable is the Supreme Court's decision in the Kearns case.
which we talked about when we argued the motion for denying access to the cameras.
And that case, Kearns versus Tribune Corporation, 685 Pacific Second, 515, says that the standard the court ought to apply in determining whether an exhibit at a preliminary hearing should be sealed is one of a, quote, realistic likelihood of prejudice.
And we rely on the evidentiary showing we've made in connection with our motion to exclude cameras that there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice in this way.
The court knows and has access to the media coverage
to the time when we litigated the motion concerning closing this hearing to the cameras.
And the court knows that one feature of the media coverage has been a very pro-prosecution bias of every story that has been published on this account.
The court also knows from that coverage
that that information is being widely disseminated and you have found in connection with the shackling issue that the publicity in this case is likely to reach jurors who will be part of our jury pool.
And we've also submitted to the court a public opinion survey, which shows that the prejudicial publicity that the media has already generated in this case has affected the jury pool.
Showing 1–20 of 25 · page 1 of 2
Next →